Madsen v. East Jordan Irrigation Co.

Supreme Court of Utah · Torts

Tortsblastingproximate causestrict liabilityexplosivesblastingconcussion damagesstrict liability

Facts

Plaintiff owned a mink farm in Sandy, Utah, located about 100 yards north of defendant's irrigation canal. While repairing the canal, defendant blasted with explosives, causing vibrations and noises that frightened mother mink on plaintiff's farm. Plaintiff alleged that mink are highly excitable when attending their young and, when disturbed, become terrified and kill their offspring; 108 mother mink killed 230 kittens. Plaintiff sought damages for the value of the kittens.

Issue

Whether a complaint states a cause of action against a nonnegligent blaster when concussion from blasting frightens mother mink, which then kill their kittens. More specifically, whether the mother mink's acts were an intervening cause that prevented the blasting from being treated as the proximate cause absent an allegation of negligence.

Rule

Even where absolute liability is recognized for blasting, liability without negligence is limited to harms ordinarily resulting from an explosion, such as shock, air vibrations, and thrown missiles. If the injury occurs only through an independent intervening act stemming from a peculiar animal disposition not within the realm of anticipation, proximate causation is broken and negligence must be alleged.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Frontier Utility Works, a pipeline contractor, set off dynamite charges near Pueblo, Colorado to clear rock from a trench. The blast produced a severe air concussion that instantly killed several chickens in Dana Ruiz's nearby coop, even though no rocks or debris reached her land.

If Dana sues without alleging negligence, which is the strongest argument for recovery?

Explanation. The majority accepted that absolute liability in blasting extends to ordinary physical consequences of an explosion, including shock and air vibrations, not just thrown debris. If the concussion directly causes the injury, negligence need not be alleged. The court distinguished only injuries dependent on an independent intervening act. (Derived from Madsen v. East Jordan Irrigation Co. (n.d.).)